Datensatz: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the predictive value of four risk assessment instruments
Datum der Erstveröffentlichung
Autor:innen
Andere Beitragende
Repositorium der Erstveröffentlichung
Version des Datensatzes
Link zur Lizenz
Angaben zur Forschungsförderung
Projekt
Sammlungen
Core Facility der Universität Konstanz
Bewerten Sie die FAIRness der Forschungsdaten
Titel in einer weiteren Sprache
Publikationsstatus
Zusammenfassung
We systematically reviewed the available evidence on the discrimination of four well-established Risk-Assessment Instruments (RAIs) used to estimate the probability of recidivism for general (Level of Service Inventory-Revised; LSI-R), violent (Violence Risk Appraisal Guide; VRAG), sexual (Static-99R), and intimate partner violent offences (Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment; ODARA). We conducted bivariate logit-normal random effects meta-analysis of the sensitivity and false positive rates and modelled the positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) using BRs as reported in a) the construction samples of each RAI and b) recent official statistics and peer-reviewed articles for different offence categories and countries. To assess risk of bias we used the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies.
Zusammenfassung in einer weiteren Sprache
Fachgebiet (DDC)
Schlagwörter
Zitieren
ISO 690
SCHNYDER, Nina, 2024. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the predictive value of four risk assessment instrumentsBibTex
RDF
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" >
<rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/72670">
<dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/71936"/>
<dcterms:issued>2024</dcterms:issued>
<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
<dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/71936"/>
<dc:contributor>Schnyder, Nina</dc:contributor>
<dc:creator>Schnyder, Nina</dc:creator>
<foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
<dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2025-03-14T10:37:32Z</dc:date>
<dcterms:abstract>We systematically reviewed the available evidence on the discrimination of four well-established Risk-Assessment Instruments (RAIs) used to estimate the probability of recidivism for general (Level of Service Inventory-Revised; LSI-R), violent (Violence Risk Appraisal Guide; VRAG), sexual (Static-99R), and intimate partner violent offences (Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment; ODARA). We conducted bivariate logit-normal random effects meta-analysis of the sensitivity and false positive rates and modelled the positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) using BRs as reported in a) the construction samples of each RAI and b) recent official statistics and peer-reviewed articles for different offence categories and countries. To assess risk of bias we used the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies.</dcterms:abstract>
<void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
<dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2025-03-14T10:37:32Z</dcterms:available>
<bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/72670"/>
<dcterms:title>Systematic review and meta-analysis of the predictive value of four risk assessment instruments</dcterms:title>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
